Government regulators were too busy in 2012

The liberals have gone with their typical attacks, not on the content of the
letter, but have attacked the letter writer. This only proves that what was
written is true.

Even if the Republicans complain only about the
costs of the regulations, that itself is something to pay attention to. Think
about it this way. If businesses are spending more money complying with
regulations, how do you expect them to hire more people or even pay their
workers more?

None of the regulations listed in this letter was
either cost effective or beneficial. How do you liberals justify wasting money
on regulations that only impede business?

Utes FanSalt Lake City, UT

Dec. 29, 2012 5:23 p.m.

@procuradorfiscal

"It's anti-freedom, anti-prosperity,
anti-American liberals we fear, not those pointing out the emperor's
unclothed status."---------

Thank you for your comments. I
agree completely. We need to condemn the pro-regulation, anti-freedom liberal
left as strongly as possible. You see, I used to be one of them. I voted for
John Kerry in 2004 and was angry Bush won. I used to think that regulations and
bigger government were the solutions to every problem in society.

What changed me? Well, I changed jobs in 2006. I went to work for a technology
organization that was under federal regulations. I couldn't believe how
difficult, nay impossible, it was for me and the company I worked for to do my
job under the constant threat of a federally forced shutdown if we didn't
do things exactly as the suits in Washington mandated. The regulations were so
rigid and useless that I completely changed all my political views. I am now
vehemently opposed to the anti-American agenda of the liberal left.

Oh, by the way, the organization I worked for failed and had to shut down the
project it was working on, not surprisingly.

EmajorOgden, UT

Dec. 29, 2012 2:53 p.m.

procuradorfiscal,My comment was neither censure nor calumny/defamation.
And criticism is fair game. Refutation is irrelevant because you didn't
have a point to refute, just incoherent strings of insult directed at
caricatures you've invented. So take that as validation if you must. And
you're welcome, I guess.

procuradorfiscalTooele, UT

Dec. 29, 2012 11:42 a.m.

Re: "Inventing an enemy and then throwing yourself into endless combat with
him is a difficult way to live . . . ."

I should probably pay
some heed to that comment -- if anyone would know about the difficulty of
endless combat with an invented enemy, that would be liberals.

But,
it's nice to have my approach validated. Unfair liberal censure, criticism,
calumny, and defamation -- but never refutation -- is the clearest possible
indicator I'm on the right track.

Thanks!

Eric SamuelsenProvo, UT

Dec. 29, 2012 11:30 a.m.

Every one of these regulations makes perfect sense to me. Yay for federal
regulators!

ECRBurke, VA

Dec. 28, 2012 10:05 p.m.

One old man - I have to say I am disappointed to not be included in your Justice
League organization. =) But, if I keep trying, maybe someday. Happy New
Year!

one old manOgden, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 9:00 p.m.

Emajor, Truthseeker, LDS Liberal, Hutterite -- thank you all for being
intelligent, thinking, patriotic Americans who have the good sense to stand for
truth in a world filled with conservative fantasies.

It's a
never ending and thankless job, but someone has to try to counter the lies of
hate radio and those who are gullible enough to believe and mindlessly repeat
them.

All I can say is thank goodness there are enough of us out
there to have prevented the election of Mr. Romney.

Although I
vigorously opposed Hillary in the 2008 election, she's looking better and
better all the time as a possible replacement for President Obama. Certainly
infinitely better than anything the GOP fielded this last time. And won't
it be FUN to hear all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in Utah when she's
elected?

EmajorOgden, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 8:25 p.m.

the truth,

Thank you for so effectively disproving
procuradorfiscal's claim that liberals have created the "shrill
bleating echo chamber" dialogue of political discourse.

EmajorOgden, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 8:22 p.m.

procuradorfiscal,

Your comments are baffling. If conservatives
didn't invent the art of shrill Echo Chamber political dialogue through
talk radio and the Fox News network, then they certainly perfected it. But the
truly odd thing is that you claim to bring some badly needed dissenting opinion
to the overwhelming liberal debate, yet all I have been able to discern from
your many comments is that you despise "liberals" and are content to
caricature them and make the worst assumptions about their intentions. If that
is the model of conservative thought, then I am very content to run the other
way. Inventing an enemy and then throwing yourself into endless combat with him
is a difficult way to live, I would suggest reconsidering it.

TruthseekerSLO, CA

Dec. 28, 2012 8:17 p.m.

Corporations have proven many times they will pursue short term interests at the
expense of the health and well-being of Americans and the American economy. We
know individuals often choose what is expedient over what is prudent. We know
people are often self-centered. Farmer A will use all the water or Corporation
X will pollute the water and not worry about those downstream. We know lending
institutions will encourage fabrication and loan money then sell the junk loans
to someone else. We found Enron would puposely cause power shortages and then
sell power at inflated prices. We know food and pharmacuetical companies will
ignore contamination in their plants. We know auto manufacturers will make and
sell defective dangerous cars. We know people will carry loaded guns on planes
if not stopped. The list is endless. Absolutely we need regulations.
I'm glad we have the FDA, TSA, EPA etc.

Anybody who
doesn't see a need for regulation is not living in the real world.

the truthHolladay, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 7:38 p.m.

@Kalindra

The fact that liberals and progressives believe they need
to micromanage our lives should be enough.

Let us be a free people.
and let us be responsible for our own ourselves.

Liberalism,
progressivism, Socialism and communism is for the weak and dependent, for the
immoral or amoral, for those with relative values, the irresponsible, for
those that need to be told what to do and how to live.

Conservatism,
capitalism, free markets, Freedom and liberty, are for the Strong and for
Grown ups, who are more moral and principled, for those who are responsible,
For those that willing to take the good and the bad to have more Freedom.

You can blame whomever you want for all the regulations, there is plenty
of blame to go around,

but I have never seen a leftest that did not
like more regulation, nor was willing to risk more freedom by giving up some
regulation and control or security be it business regulation, or a mandate, the
patriot act, welfare, SS, healthcare, the TSA, or choice in soft drink
size.

The Left would rather the government dictate them their choices
rather than have ultimate freedom of any choice.

procuradorfiscalTooele, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 7:11 p.m.

Re: "Most people get that each side has part of the truth . . . ."

While there are good, honest, decent people in both political parties,
most are dedicated to living their lives, and seldom engage in political
debate

Wisely so.

Modern American political
"debate" degenerated years ago into an echo chamber of shrill liberal
bleating regarding why conservatives went off the track, and how we could be so
execrable as to refuse to bow to the will of the 0.000035% of Americans that
engage in political "debate."

Though some liberals seem to
actually believe real people listen to their vacuous sophistry, media such as
this provide little more than opportunity to demonstrate commitment to rigid
liberal orthodoxy.

My tiny voice merely attempts to introduce some
small dissonance into the oddly coherent waves of that vast echo chamber, in the
small hope that one or two "debaters" may have some idle curiosity
regarding what real people actually think.

The tired, discredited
"other side" is trumpeted so loud and long, I don't need to repeat
it.

Just refute it.

LDS LiberalFarmington, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 6:53 p.m.

And BTW --

New York didn't ban soda out right, they
simply regulated the size sold.

You can always buy more than one.

LDS LiberalFarmington, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 6:51 p.m.

The irony is the same folks who cry foul over New York banning super sized soda
(for the sake of the Health of citizens)Have been trying to ban alcohol
and cigarettes for 100 years, for the same reason.

This only proves
that the Alcohol and Tobacco lobbyists in this country are expotenstionally more
powerful that Coke or Pepsi.

KalindraSalt Lake City, Utah

Dec. 28, 2012 6:32 p.m.

The hyperbole and lack of facts when discussing New York's soda rules are
proof enough of he lack of integrity of the authors of this article. Nothing
they say is worth the space it took them to say it.

ScrewdriverCasa Grande, AZ

Dec. 28, 2012 4:40 p.m.

In Sunday School they told me rules were like the string of a kite. They
don't keep the kite down, they keep it up.

Many have faith that
businessmen will do the right thing ALL the time if we just let them but the
fact is they don't. If men were angles we'd have no need of
governments or it's rules. But they aren't.

Nobody is
forcing you to live here. Buck up buttercup, it'll be alright.

Tyler DMeridian, ID

Dec. 28, 2012 3:21 p.m.

It used to be that liberals talked only about the benefits of regulations and
made no mention of costs. That’s how we become so over regulated by the
1970’s. Then along came Reagan…

Now conservatives talk
only about the costs (which is why they hate all regulations) and make no
mention of the benefits. Or if they do, it usually takes the form of
“… while the benefits are questionable.”

Yes, I
often question why my lungs prefer clean air.

And now here we are in
the 21st century with two political parties that seem incapable of seeing the
other side of the coin (the truth the other side is myopically focused on) on
almost any issue, and are painfully ignorant of why the American people continue
to elect divided government.

Most people get that each side has part
of the truth, and if they would only stop the partisan nonsense and start
working with each other, on this issue for example we would get much more
sensible regulations and may even get rid of some obsolete ones.

EmajorOgden, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 2:51 p.m.

procuradorfiscal,"it's the Obama regime and its clearly evident,
well-documented agenda to convert America into a bankrupt, eurosocialist, nanny
state, that identifies the successful among us as the enemy."

OK,
time for an equally ridiculous liberal rant: the conservatives'
well-documented agenda to convert America into a xenophobic, money-worshiping
society ruled by trust-fund babies who enjoy seeing people living on the streets
because they can feel smug in their material comfort, who fully endorse social
Darwinism, who are willing to go into national debt for war but not for helping
their fellow man, and who view size restrictions on soda pop as evil government
meddling, but want government to prohibit marriage rights for a segment of the
population.

LDS LiberalFarmington, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 2:18 p.m.

Seriously -- What's next?

The Deseret News sourcing "The
Blaze"

procuradorfiscal -- "It's not the Heritage
Foundation we fear -- it's the Obama regime and its clearly evident,
well-documented agenda to convert America into a bankrupt, eurosocialist, nanny
state, that identifies the successful among us as the enemy."

Dude, climb back into your bunker.Y2K came and went, The Mayans
were wrong, and so is Warren Jeffs.

If you feel that scared and
paranoid, Our world would be better off with you in an underground bunker after
all.

LDS LiberalFarmington, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 1:35 p.m.

Diane Katz is research fellow in regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation
---

Only one-sided AM hate radio sources "The Heritage
Foundation".

Has the DN as a "legitimate" newspaper
stooped to publishing this known Lobbying bias?orWill the DN start
publishing Liberal Only sources to maintain being "fair and balanced" -
ironically also the farse of FauxNews

ECRBurke, VA

Dec. 28, 2012 12:38 p.m.

procuradorfiscal said, "It's not the Heritage Foundation we fear --
it's the Obama regime and its clearly evident, well-documented agenda to
convert America into a bankrupt, eurosocialist, nanny state, that identifies the
successful among us as the enemy."

So it's a slow day and I
don't mind spending my last allowed comment to say that this statement is
proof that my opening statement that "the Heritage Foundation is wasting no
time putting fear in the hearts of Americans with their hyperbolic descriptions
of recent changes in regulation" is obviously true. Thank you for providing
the evidence in print. Happy New Year!

HutteriteAmerican Fork, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 12:21 p.m.

I'm not buying the 'conscience denial' one. Individuals have a
conscience. Churches and corporations are merely the reflection, and in some
cases imposition, of someone elses' conscience. If churches are doing their
jobs, people will act on their conscience accordingly.

Brer RabbitSpanish Fork, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 11:36 a.m.

Other regulations that will be very costly for taxpayers are the regulations
making it much easier for illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and
in some cases even those that commit a felony, after they have served the time.

1)"Prosecutorial Discretion," by the Department of Homeland
Security which has decided not to deport most of the illegal aliens.

2)Amnesty for those wanting to attend college who have graduated from high
school, or have a GED, and between the age of 18 and 32.

3)Utah's HB116 that goes into effect July 1,2013 which would allow
illegal aliens that have ever lived in Utah to get a "permit" to work in
Utah at any type of work that they qualify for. There is no limit to the number
of permits that could be issued to employers or illegal immigrants. It is
estimated that it will cost Utah taxpayers over 6 million $$$ to implement this
regulation. HB116 cannot go into effect unless the Federal Government gives Utah
a waiver, or July 1, 2013 if no waiver is given. We will have to wait for the
2013 Legislative session to see what they do about this.

red state prideCottonwood Heights, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 11:05 a.m.

Would the world come to an end if we got rid of one cabinet level department?
Really, can America not function without the Department of Energy? Did we really
need a Department of Homeland Security? Did the TSA have to be a government
agency? Could the private airlines not provide their own security/ screening
more efficiently and at a lower cost? Over the last few generations most
of the citizens in the western world have been sufficiently infantilized by
their Governments so that they are convinced that Government should be
responsible for what were formerly accepted as basic adult responsibilities
(making their own healthcare, retirement arrangements for example). So
apparently now we aren't even capable of making our own decisions on credit
applications or taking out a mortgage without the help of a friendly bureaucrat
from CFPB. You know that new agency created by Dodd-Frank and conveniently
within the Federal Reserve so there can be no congressional oversight of
it's operations? The ratchet tightens.

one old manOgden, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 10:53 a.m.

No, MM, we don't wonder. We know.

It started Reagan and
continued through Bush, Bush, and their GOP cohorts.

Let's see.
Unfunded wars. Unfunded Medicare Part D. Tax cuts for the wealthy. Subsidies
for oil companies and other big businesses. Laws gutting what little regulation
there was of Wall Street, Banks, and mortgage companies.

I could go
on and on. But some folks have their minds set in concrete so it's a waste
of time.

procuradorfiscalTooele, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 10:41 a.m.

Re: "I see the Heritage Foundation is wasting no time putting fear in the
hearts of Americans . . . ."

It's not the Heritage
Foundation we fear -- it's the Obama regime and its clearly evident,
well-documented agenda to convert America into a bankrupt, eurosocialist, nanny
state, that identifies the successful among us as the enemy.

That and
the regime's clueless liberal cheerleaders, bent on justifying its every
step toward the brink, one that -- history shows -- will surely result in
oppression, poverty, chaos, and ultimately, violence.

It's
anti-freedom, anti-prosperity, anti-American liberals we fear, not those
pointing out the emperor's unclothed status.

Ultra BobCottonwood Heights, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 10:29 a.m.

As usual the conservative businessmen will emphasize the actions of government
only in terms of money and only when the effect is on business. And are willing
to destroy the freedom and rights of the American people for riches and wealth.

Every law, policy, action and regulation that the government does in
America is bought and paid for by private business.

Articles like
this are simply part of the competition of the commercial forces in their
efforts to control the government to their own benefit.

ECRBurke, VA

Dec. 28, 2012 10:07 a.m.

"The rules run an astonishing 1,099 pages. The net result of this and
similar rules? Fewer consumer mortgage lending options and increased
costs."

Pops - Is this your idea of an explanation - because
there is an excess of pages explaining the rules? What if there were too few
pages and someone took advantage of the situation to misinterpret the
regulation. Would you have a complaint about that? And what evidence does
Heritage provide to back up their assertion that these regulations will create
"(f)ewer consumer mortgage lending options and increased costs" other
than their opinion? Would you prefer that we have no regulations and create
another situation that brought about the economic downturn of 2008? Did you
stop to think that might be what this regulation is addressing? Did some
homeowners unnecessarily lose there homes because of the reckless and unethical
behavior of mortgage companies and banks when it came to to foreclose and cut
their losses? There is plenty of evidence to support that very fact. The fact
is that the Heritage Foundation and the conservative class that funds them never
saw a regulation it didn't hate. But the bad behavior of some
unfortunately makes some regulations necessary.

TruthseekerSLO, CA

Dec. 28, 2012 9:54 a.m.

So why didn't DN include the source of the article, The Heritage
Foundation?

Is DN having problems with its website? Troubling
logging in and even accessing the site at times.

PopsNORTH SALT LAKE, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 9:06 a.m.

The problem is regulations for which the benefit doesn't justify the cost.
If a regulation "designed to protect consumers" actually ends up costing
consumers and unnecessarily limits access to home mortgages, then it's a
bad regulation and should be flagged and changed. The Heritage Foundation thinks
these are bad regulations and explains why. "Yuk, it's from the
Heritage Foundation blah blah" does nothing to explain why their assessment
might be incorrect. And identifying stupid regulations from the past in no way
justifies stupid regulations today.

I agree with UTAH Bill, but I
would take it a step further: our legislators should be required to repeal one
or two laws for every law they pass.

UTAH BillSalt Lake City, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 8:25 a.m.

The vast majority of regulations impacting our lives flow from statute, not from
some "nanny" agenda as portrayed. Look at our own Utah legislature for
an example. Between 700 to 900 bills will be filed this year for Utah's
2013 legislative session. Fortunately, many will not pass. But, of the bills
that do pass, they'll be a significant impact on regulations that will need
to be put in place or modified in order to implement statutory changes. Want to
substantially cut down on regulations? Press your representatives to pass fewer
laws.

Roland KayserCottonwood Heights, UT

Dec. 28, 2012 8:26 a.m.

Our economy was far more regulated back in the 50's, 60's, and
70's. The government determined the price of every airline ticket. Every
box of freight that moved across the country was regulated. The government
regulated how much interest banks could pay, and how much they could charge.
Labor laws and anti-trust laws were much more stringent. Private citizens could
not own gold. The list goes on, do a little research.

MountanmanHayden, ID

Dec. 28, 2012 7:16 a.m.

And liberals wonder why our government is unaffordable.

ECRBurke, VA

Dec. 28, 2012 6:54 a.m.

I see the Heritage Foundation is wasting no time putting fear in the hearts of
Americans with their hyperbolic descriptions of recent changes in regulation.
But if this is the best they can come up with then we have it pretty soft here
in the US.

Let's see, they start of with mortgage rules designed
to protect consumers (an obvious no no for the Heritage Foundation) then they
move right into listing a "proposed" regulation by the Department of
Transportation, as if it is settled law. Then there is the favorite target -
Obamacare - and a Labor Department rule that could be equally as detrimental to
labor unions members as non-members, but of course it is made to sound totally
pro-labor. Then there are complaints about trying to improve school lunch
nutrition and the assertion that because the mayor of New York has put
ridiculous rules of consumption in place that we are all subject to them.

Then there is the comment that mileage standards would raise car prices
by hundreds of dollars in 2025. How much will capitalism raise our car prices
by then? And finally, Obamacare relaxed rules about contraception in February.
Look it up.